Sentenced to 30 years with no evidence, only testimony. Has this always been the case?

They are very similar. It would be a similar sort of situation, similar issue at play.

In the Mike Tyson case, it's hard to argue that a woman wearing a skirt with her thighs wrapped around the man's torso and acting very lasciviously towards him is not intending to have sex with him.

But maybe for modern feminists that is not enough? That they think she needs to specifically express her intent in words or writing?

 

a video of the same women stating she gives consent moments before having sex is so much more powerful evidence though

 

I know you “could care less” about women, that’s obvious.

Do you not understand that if a woman consents to sex then it isn’t rape.

Do you not understand that if a woman does not consent to sex prior or during sex and the man continues it is rape.

Do you not understand that saying a women who doesn’t enjoy sex with a man might claim rape for that reason is, in short, a stupid comment that only a man could conjure up. If consent occurs before and continues during the whole sex act, then that isn’t rape. It’s consensual sex that a women may not have liked for whatever reason. You can say what you want but you are putting down women in a very demeaning fashion.

If a woman does not want to have sex with a man, she will say so. A verbal no means no consent. If a woman does not say no verbally but is trying to fight the man off, then that would be taken as not given consent as well. There has to be some kind of verbal or non-verbal behaviour that indicates lack of consent. Rape is an act of power over another person, forcing them to do something they don’t want to do.

By the way, your comment of a “woman wearing a skirt with her thighs wrapped around the man's torso and acting very lasciviously towards him is not intending to have sex with him” is very telling. I am pretty sure this is you saying a woman acting and looking like such a slut just wants sex. Well, dude, that isn’t always true. A women can dress and act enticingly without actually wanting sex.

Yes, I believe your post was totally ridiculous. I stand by my comments.

 

That's not the issue here, is it?

If you have proof she was raped, that would be one thing. But we are talking about in situations where the only evidence is she says it happened.

So you think the man should not get the benefit of the doubt if we know for a fact (through separate evidence besides her testimony after the fact) that she gave consent at one point?

 

So even if we have three separate witnesses that she was doing this, you are one of those people who would still vote to convict the man of rape.

The woman could be seen on a security video camera tape pulling the man into a motel room with her - a man she met on a sex hookup site - and you would still vote to convict him.

Because, after all, "a woman should have the right to change her mind".
And you accuse me of being the one who is being ridiculous.

 

So what you are saying is a woman has no right to change her mind because she appears to want to have sex. So a man meets a woman online on a hookup site and she is seen pulling him into a hotel room. So these actions don’t give her the right to change her mind? Well sorry that is what is referred to as slut shaming. In the hotel room if this man does something to alarm or upset the woman and she decides she no longer wants to have sex and says so, then she has withdrawn consent and if he continues, it is rape.

This not ridiculous. As a juror, I would want to know details about both of these people. Did the woman report the rape — why or why not. Does this man have any history of sexually abusing other women. Does the woman have a history of false accusations. And so on. Obviously, there was footage of her entering the room, did the footage show her leaving the room upset and distraught, did they leave together? There are all sorts of things. Circumstantial evidence can add up. How much reasonable doubt I would have would be based on evidence from both sides. I am not going to base my opinion on the fact that initially the woman seemed to have wanted the sex. As I already explained — a woman has the right to say NO if she no longer wants to have sex. She has the right to stay stop right in the middle if she feels in danger.

If your daughter went out on a date dressed in a provocative manner and was seen going into a room happily — if she told you she had been raped because by her description she withdrew consent for whatever reason, would your answer be ‘Well, you were all dressed up like you wanted a hookup, you looked happy with him, you therefore had no right to say no, suck it up. Don’t you get that no means NO. You seem to want to exonerate any man accused of alleged rape based on the woman seemingly wanting it. That is disgusting,

She was dressed like she wanted a good time, she seemed like she wanted it — is only the defense a rapist would give if he went ahead after she said no.

 

what do you mean, ‘no real evidence’?

You DO realize that eyewitness testimony is evidence, by the very definition of the word?

 

I think what he really means, what he couldn't articulate very well, is that the only real evidence of either of the individual alleged rapes he was accused of was the testimony of one person--the alleged victim.

According to the perspective of some, the testimony of just one witness is not very strong. It would basically be his word against the person who is accusing him.

I think what chris155au very naively thought was that no one could be convicted and sent to prison for 30 years unless there was solid indisputable proof that person did the crime. A lot of people in society ignorantly assume that.

It is of course possible that one or both women could be lying.

 

I think you are asking a very stupid and naive question -- but a question that raises an issue that most ordinary people do not think about.

People can, and SHOULD, be convicted (found guilty) in some cases where the "evidence" is not strong enough to constitute "proof".
The only real dilemma or controversy are when exactly those situations are.

I keep telling people this and nobody listens. When the jury decides to vote "guilty" it does not necessarily mean that they have "determined" that the defendant did the crime. It does mean that they have decided that the defendant should get punishment.
Those two are not exactly the same thing, even though people with lazy brains often assume they are.